Author 



***** 










** * * * 



o 
o 



Title 



ClassJL- 



Book 



M-&M 




Imprint 



1843 



16— -JT372-1 OPO 




BOARD OF EDUCATION, 



TO WHICH WAS REFERRED A COMMUNICATION 



FROM THE 



TRUSTEES OF THE FOURTH WARD, 



IIV RELATION TO THE 



SECTARIAN CHARACTER 




OF 




CERTAIN BOOKS IN USE IN THE SCHOOLS OF THAT WARD. 




new-vork: 
PRINTED BY LEVI D. SLAMM. 




* 1843. 



Si 



1 . 



REPORT 



OF THE 



SELECT COMMITTEE 



or THE 



■ BOARD OF EDUCATION, 

TO WHICH WAS REFERRED A COMMUNICATION 

FROM THE 

TRUSTEES OF THE FOURTH WARD, 

IN RELATION TO THE 

SECTARIAN CHARACTER 



OF 



CERTAIN BOOKS IN USE IN THE SCHOOLS OF THAT WARD. 



new-york: 

PRINTED BY LEVI D. SLAMM. 

1843. 










TMnf" 1 ** IBHHBH 



LC407 

•Nf As- 
ms 



X 






BOARD OF EDUCATION, 



OCTOBER 11, 1843. 



REPORT of the Select Committee, to which was referred 
a Communication from the Trustees of the Fourth Ward? 
in relation to the Sectarian character of certain Books in 
use in the Schools of that Ward; which Report was laid 
on the table, and ordered to be printed for the use of the 
Members. 

JOHN A. STEWART, Clerk. 



To the Board of Education of the City of New- York : 

The Committee to whom was referred the report of the 
Trustees of Common Schools for the Fourth Ward, con- 



4 

cerning certain books used in some of the Schools in said 
Ward, respectfully 

REPORT: 

That whatever may have been the individual opinion of 
different members of this Board as to what they considered 
the extraordinary character of that report, it cannot but be 
admitted that the subject presented by it is one of vast im- 
portance to this community, and the Committee have therefore 
given it their most deliberate and careful examination. 

Perhaps it would have been strictly a performance of their 
duty if your Committee had simply reported that they had 
examined the books objected to by the said Trustees, and 
stated the result of such examination. But it will probably 
be more satisfactory to this Board and to the said Trustees, 
that the Committee should state more at large the views which 
have influenced them in reaching the conclusions at which 
they have arrived. 

The report of the said Trustees stated that they have " vis- 
ited the Schools in the Fourth Ward, for the purpose of exam- 
ining the books in said Schools, in order to ascertain whether 
said books contain anything of a sectarian character, contrary 
to the religious opinions entertained by any one desirous of 
sending children to said Schools ; or contrary to the said act 
of the Legislature, prohibiting the teaching, inculcating or 
practising any religious doctrine or tenet in any School parti- 
cipating in the public money." 

It is somewhat remarkable that the said Trustees, professing 
to make a grave report on this important subject, should so 
materially misquote the act of the Legislature, on which the 
objections referred to are founded. 



5 

The act does not prohibit the teaching, inculcating or prac- 
tising religious doctrines or tenets in our Schools. The pro- 
hibition is against religious sectarian doctrine ; which phrase- 
ology conveys a very different meaning from that used by the 
said Trustees, as we shall hereafter show. 

The first complaint mentioned by the said Trustees, it is 
stated, comes from the Jews. What number of that class of 
our fellow citizens have joined in this complaint, is not stated ; 
but it will not escape the notice of this Board, that although 
the Jews are scattered through the several Wards of this city, 
complaints by that class of our population have reached us 
from no other than the Fourth Ward ; and it is a well known 
fact, (which is highly creditable to the members of the Jewish 
persuasion,) that they are very little prone to interfere with the 
institutions of the country. It is said, however, that they 
object to certain passages in a very popular book, (almost uni- 
versally used in our Schools,) called " American Popular Les- 
sons," and the parts objected to are the following, viz : 

The lesson entitled " Reward of Goodness." 

The lesson entitled " Son of God." 

The lesson entitled " Heaven." 

The lesson entitled " Scripture Lessons." 

The lesson entitled " Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
self." 

The lesson entitled " The Bible." 

And the lesson entitled " The Ten Virgins." 

It is also stated that they, (the Jews,) object to the last con- 



versation in the boo£ entitled "Conversations on Common 
Things." Also, to the book entitled " Lessons for Schools, ta- 
ken from the Holy Scriptures." — To the use of the New Tes- 
tament generally, and to some parts of Murray's Reader, which 
parts however are not specified. 

Your Committee have examined the several passages and 
lessons alluded to by the said Trustees, and they are unable 
to discover any possible ground of objection even by the Jews, 
except what may arise from the fact that they are chiefly deri- 
ved from the New Testament, and inculcate the general prin- 
ciples of Christianity. Indeed what other objection could be 
made to some of the most beautiful sentiments and allusions 
that can influence human conduct or interest the human heart 1 

" The Rewards of Goodness" — alluding to the peace of 
mind it affords here, and the hopes of happiness hereafter. 

" The Son of God" came from Heaven to save an erring 
world. 

" Heaven" is a place of rest for the righteous. 

" Jesus Christ" has shown that God will render to every 
man according to his deeds. 

The duty of children to their parents, referring to the com- 
mandment : " Honor thy father and thy mother." 

" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," illustrated by 
the beautiful parable of the good Samaritan. 

" The duty of providing for the future," illustrated by the 
parable of the Five Foolish and Five Wise Yirgins, 



Such are the leading sentiments and ideas intended to be 
inculcated in the passages and lessons which it is said are com- 
plained of by the Jews. And the said Trustees of the Fourth 
Ward sanction this complaint, and say that they do not see 
any good reason why the religious opinions of the Jews should 
not be regarded with the same favor as those of Christians" — 
and they therefore call on this Board to exclude from our 
Common Schools all books which inculcate the principles of 
the Christian religion, or else to deprive such Schools of all 
participation in the public money. 

Your Committee cannot but view this as a most extraordi- 
nary and untenable position on the part of the said Trustees ; 
and the principles assumed by them, if carried out, would jus- 
tify the Mahometans, the Chinese or Pagans, on their coming 
among us, to object to our whole system of public instruction, 
because it interfered with their monstrous, absurd and unintel- 
ligible dogmas and superstitions. 

Even the Jews have not, and from the very nature of our 
systems, cannot have the same privileges as those who em- 
brace the Christian religion. It must be borne in mind that 
this country was settled by Christians ; they introduced the 
Christian religion into every State of the Union; their laws were 
formed under its influence, and it was originally made obligatory 
upon all to contribute to its support ; and in some of the States 
such laws still exist. By degrees, however, the laws of most 
of the States have been relaxed in this particular, and they have 
been so in ours. But still the Christian religion is in various 
ways incorporated and interwoven with our political systems, 
and recognized as the predominant religion of our State. We 
have indeed secured to all the full enjoyment of their religious 
belief and mode of worship ; but in offering civil and religious 
liberty to the oppressed of other nations, it surely was not in- 
tended to give them the right of changing or interfering with 
our onw religious institutions, 



8 

If it is said that the Jews ought not to be taxed for the sup- 
port of institutions, the principles of which are at variance 
with their own, it is a sufficient answer that these institutions 
were established before they came ; they are such as the ma- 
jority of the people deemed most effectual for their govern- 
ment and most conducive to their happiness. He voluntarily 
came where such institutions existed, and where the majority 
are still disposed to maintain them, and it would therefore be 
absurd and unreasonable that he should expect or ask that they 
should be changed in deference to the peculiar views of a sect 
whose numbers as compared with Christians in this country, 
are so very limited. Judge Story, in his commentaries upon 
the constitution, says that " at the time of the amendment to 
the constitution of the United States, prohibiting the passage 
of any law by Congress for the establishment of a religion, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, the general, if not the 
universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought 
to receive encouragement from the State, so far as was not in- 
compatible with the private rights of conscience, and the 
freedom of religious worship ; and that the real object of the 
amendment was not to countenance Mahometanism or Juda- 
ism or Infidelity, by prostrating Christianity — but, merely to 
exclude all rivalry among Christian sects." And this great 
expounder of constitutional law further remarks, "that the 
right of a society to interfere in matters of religion will hardly 
be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion 
and morality are intimately connected with the well-being of 
the State, and indispensable to the administration of civil jus- 
tice." 

If, then, the Jews, on coming into a Christian country, find 
institutions at variance with, or opposed to their own peculiar 
views, your committee do not perceive that they have any just 
grounds of complaint, or that they can reasonably ask that 
such institutions should be changed for their convenience. 



The Universalists, it is stated, object to several passages in 
the said book called "American Popular Lessons,." some of 
which have been already mentioned as being objected to by 
the Jews — and to some others which inculcate the doctrine of 
a future judgment, and of future rewards and punishments. 
But your committee believe that this doctrine is not denied by 
the great body of Universalists — their difference from other 
Christian denominations on this point being merely as to the 
nature and duration of future punishments. But, however this 
may be, it is singularly unfortunate for the objectors that they 
should in this instance have selected, as the ground of their ob- 
jection, a principle which is expressly adopted by our laws, and 
without a belief in which neither they nor the children in our 
schools, would be received as credible or competent witnesses 
in onr courts of justice, — a belief in the Supreme Being- and 
in future punishment for a wilful departure from the truth 
being the only ground on which a man is admitted as a wit- 
ness in any matter affecting the life, the liberty or the pro- 
perty of his fellow men — 2 R. S. 329. This law recognizes 
the principle of future punishments ; it is a most salutary prin- 
ciple, and very generally admitted among civilized nations as 
the great bond of safety in the administration of civil justice ; 
and so far from its being a just ground of objection to any 
book that inculcates that doctrine, your committee are of opin- 
ion that it ought, on every proper occasion, to be impressed 
upon the youthful mind. 

The Catholics, it is stated, object to the use of the Protestant 
version of the Bible, and to the use of the " Lessons taken 
from the Holy Scriptures" — which latter book is also objected 
to by the Jews. This book consists merely of selections from 
the Bible, and has been very generally considered, both in 
Europe and in this country, as a most judicious selection, and 
admirably adapted to the use of schools. There can be no 
other objection to that than to the Bible itself. 

2 



10 

As to the objection to the Protestant version of the 
Bible, a portion of your committee did not deem that 
a proper subject for their deliberation, as this point has 
already been agitated and discussed in this Board, and, 
as they supposed, disposed of by a resolution adopted on 
the twenty-first of Feburary last, which has never been 
rescinded. Another portion of the committee, however, 
and perhaps a majority, are under the impression that it is in- 
cumbent on the committee to express their views on this point 
also, and they have accordingly done so in a subsequent part 
of this report. 

But considering the nature of the objections preferred by the 
said trustees, and the manner in which they are presented to 
this Board, your committee presume they will be doing no in- 
justice to the said trustees, or to those they profess to represent, 
in supposing that the objections are, in fact, to the Bible itself. 
And this brings us directly to the consideration whether the 
Bible was intended by the Legislature to be excluded from our 
common schools, or whether, independent of any such inten- 
tion, it is expedient thus to exclude it. 

Your committee are decidedly of opinion that the Legisla- 
ture, in passing the Act of 1842, did not intend to exclude the 
Holy Scriptures from our common schools, nor to prohibit the 
inculcation of the great and fundamental doctrines of the Chris- 
tian religion — or, in other words, that those doctrines are not 
" sectarian" within the meaning of that law. 

If such had been the meaning of the Legislature, the phra- 
seology of the act would have been different, and the word 
" sectarian" would not have been used at all. The act would 
simply have prohibited the teaching or inculcating of all reli- 
gious doctrines, which is the language erroneously imputed to 
the Legislature by the said trustees in their report — leaving out 
the word "• sectarian," and thus extending the prohibition to 
all religious doctrines or tenets. 



11 

The meaning of the word " sectarian," according to the most 
approved lexicographers, is one who departs from, or holds 
tenets different from the established or prevailing religion of a 
atSte or Kingdom." 

If then the Christian religion is in fact the prevailing reli- 
gion of this State, (as it will hereinafter be shown to be,) the 
word "sectarian" in the act would apply only to those who do 
not adopt the principles of Christianity. But your Committee 
are not disposed to view it in this limited sense, and are of 
opinion that the word " sectarian," as used in the act of 1842, 
was intended to be applied to the various religious denomina- 
tions into which the people of this State are divided. 

That the Legislature however did not intend to prohibit the 
inculcation of those great principles of Christianity on which 
the various denominations of Christians are united, is evident 
from the fact that the Christian religion is recognized by our 
laws as the prevailing religion of the State, nor is there any 
thing in the constitution of this State, or of the United States, 
inconsistent with this position. 

The constitution of the United States merely declares that 
11 Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of 
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus leaving 
the whole subject to the control of the States respectively. 

The constitution of this state (Art. 7. Sec. 3,) merely pro- 
vides for the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profes- 
sion and worship, without discrimination or preference. " The 
object of which article was," says Chancellor Kent, "to guard 
against spiritual oppression and intolerance, and it is fully sat- 
isfied by a full and universal toleration without any of the 
tests, disabilities or discriminations incident to a religious es- 
tablishment." (8 J. R. 296 and 297.) 

But it is worthy of remark, that even the constitution re- 
cognizes an order of men set apart solely for the preaching and 



12 



inculcation of the great principles of Christianity, and has 
provided for their being confined exclusively to the great du- 
ties of their profession. (Art. 2, sec. 4.) "Whereas the min- 
isters of the gospel are by their profession dedicated to the ser- 
vice of God and the cure of souls, and ought not to be diverted 
from the great duties of their functions, therefore no minister 
of the gospel or priest of any denomination whatever, shall at 
any time hereafter, under any pretence or description whatso- 
ever, be eligible to, or capable of holding any civil or military 
office or place within this State." 

This clause in our State Constitution, in the opinion of your 
Committee, goes far towards recognizing the Christian religion 
as one of the great and paramount features in our civil institu- 
tions ; but whatever difference of opinion may exist on this 
point, it would appear that there can be no such difference as 
to the fact that the Christian religion is recognized by our 
statutes and laws, as in fact the predominant religion of the 
State. 

In the first place it must be observed that we have 
adopted the common law of England as it was in 1775, and 
no one conversant with that law will deny that Christian- 
ity was one of its component parts. 4 Bl. Com. 60. And al- 
though the constitution and laws of this State have given the 
greatest possible latitude to the principle of religious toler- 
ation, they have in no respect limited or interfered with the 
great principle engrafted on the common law, that Christian- 
ity is part and parcel of the law of the land. This point 
has been expressly adjudicated in the Supreme Court of 
this State, at a time when that great luminary of the juris- 
prudence of our State and country, Chancellor Kent, presided 
over its deliberations and decisions. We refer to the case of the 
People vs. Ruggles, which was an indictment for blasphemy 
against Jesus Christ ; and that Court sustained the indictment 
upon the great principles of the common law,'(8 J.R. 294.) And 
to ascertain how this matter was viewed by the framers of the 



13 

Constitution of this State, your committee have looked into 
the debates in the convention ; and they find that a clause was 
introduced into the draft of the new Constitution, declaring' 
that no particular religion should ever be declared or adjudged 
to be the law of the State. An eminent jurist, then a member 
of the convention, moved to strike out that clause, on the 
ground that we had adopted the Christian religion as the 
law of the State, and that in fact it was the religion of the 
State ; and after considerable discussion the clause was struck 
out by a vote of 74 to 41, thereby in effect declaring it as the 
opinion of that convention that the Christian religion was and 
is the law of this State. And it is worthy of remark that in 
the debate on that question some of the ablest jurists and 
statesmen of which our State and country can boast, participa- 
ted, and in the affirmative of the question will be found, with- 
out reference to party distinctions, a large portion of the talent 
and weight of character that existed in the convention. 

But if this question had been left doubtful in reference to the 
principles of the common law, and the provisions of the Con- 
stitution, the statute law of this State has spoken in terms too 
strong to be resisted, and too clear and unequivocal to be mis- 
apprehended. 

To establish the point that Christianity is recognized as in 
fact the prevailing religion of the State, it would seem to be 
sufficient to refer to the statute enforcing the observance of the 
Lord's day or Sunday ; a day instituted in commemoration of 
the resurrection of the Divine Author of that religion. In 
our State all the great and multiplied business of men is by 
law suspended on that day. All secular employments, public 
amusements, travelling, and even the issuing of legal process 
are prohibited. A solemn pause is enjoined in human pursuits, 
and all are thereby invited to unite in the acknowledgement of 
one Almighty Father, and to devote one day in seven to the 
Great Author of our being, and of our salvation. No matter 
what may be the peculiar views of any individual, whether he 



14 

believe or not in a God, a Saviour, or a revelation ; be he Jew, 
Turk, or Infidel, yet in deference to the religious views of the 
great majority of our population, he is compelled to set apart 
one-seventh of his life in commemoration of that great and 
awful event on which the whole fabric of the Christian reli- 
gion rests — the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. 
A more unequivocal avowal that the Christian religion is in 
fact the religion of this State, and to be regarded as such, could 
hardly be devised, short of a direct enactment for its establish- 
ment. 

Another part of our laws establishing the same point, is the 
statute concerning oaths. All oaths must be administered by 
laying the hands on and kissing the Gospels, 2 R. S. 407. 
And although the statute makes an exception in favor of 
those who believe in some other than the Christian religion, (as 
the Jews,) and also those who prefer to swear by the uplifted 
hand, yet with these exceptions, swearing by the Gospels is the 
prescribed form, and in that way most of us were qualified on 
entering upon the duties we have assumed as members of this 
Board. 

The statute in relation to apprentices bound to service by the 
public authorities (whereby it is made incumbent on the mas- 
ter to supply a new Bible to the apprentice) — the statute pro- 
viding for furnishing a Bible to convicts in our prisons — to 
children in the House of Refuge — to the tenants in the Marine 
Hospital, and the employment of chaplains to attend these pub- 
lic establishments — all these provisions show most unequivo- 
cally the importance attached by the Legislature to the distri- 
bution of the Bible, as the great source of moral instruction to 
the young, moral reform to the depraved, and religious consola- 
tion to the unfortunate and distressed. 

Again — the Legislature, from the earliest period of our his- 
tory, with the exception of one session, (which in this particu- 
lar at least will enjoy no enviable fame,) have invariably 



15 

opened their daily sittings by invoking the influence of the 
Christian religion upon their deliberations and actions — and 
chaplains are regularly appointed to perforin that solemn 
service, and are compensated therefor out of the public 
treasury. 

In view of all these laws, so clearly evincing their recog- 
nition of the Christian religion, can it be for one moment 
contended that it was the intent of the Legislature to exclude 
the great fountain of that religion, (the Bible,) from the schools 
created and fostered by the bounty of the State ? While they 
have passed such severe laws for enforcing the observance of 
the Christian Sabbath, an institution so intimately connected 
with the promulgation of the Christian religion, will it be 
believed that they intended to exclude from their schools the 
only book by which a knowledge of that religion can be 
acquired? While they have passed laws which introduce 
the Gospel into our Legislative Halls, our Courts of Justice, 
our public offices and every other place where an oath is 
administered, did they intend to exclude those Gospels from 
the great nurseries of our future legislators, judges and magis- 
trates ? While they have wisely and benignly made provision 
for furnishing the Bible to the orphans under their care, to the 
miserable convicts in your prisons, to the deluded children in 
your House of Refuge, to the disabled sailor or soldier in your 
hospitals, did they cruelly intend to withhold it from their 
own children in the public schools ? While they themselves 
in Legislative Assembly deemed it necessary or proper to invoke 
the holy influence of religion upon their actions, did they in pass- 
ing the law under consideration, intend to exclude the influence 
of that religion from the schools of their bounty and their care? 
To impute such a design to the Legislature would not, in the 
opinion of your committee, be paying a decent respect to their 
knowledge of the laws and policy of the State, or to their de- 
sire to meet the wishes, or promote the best interests, of their 
constituents. 



16 

Assuming then that the Legislature did not by the act 
of 1842, or by any subsequent act, intend to prohibit 
the inculcation of the Christain religion in our common 
schools, nor to exclude the Bible therefrom, but on the con- 
trary intended to permit the use thereof in such schools, the 
question arises whether any, and what particular version of the 
Bible is meant : and this brings up the complaint stated to have 
been made by the Roman Catholics against what they call the 
Protestant version. 

It will have been perceived that the Bible is mentioned in 
various statutes, and its use and distribution provided for to a 
certain extent ; and yet in no instance has it been deemed ne- 
cessary by the Legislature to define what particular version of 
the Bible is alluded to in those statutes. Your committee 
therefore deem it fair to infer that the Legislature alluded to 
that which is in general use in this State and country, and 
which is unquestionably that version which was published 
under the direction of King James, and sometimes called the 
Protestant version, to distinguish it from that which is exclu- 
sively used by the Roman Catholics, and which is commonly 
known as the Douay Bible. 

That the latter version was not intended by the Legislature 
is most manifest, because it has a very limited circulation in 
this State, and probably had never been seen or heard of by a 
very large proportion of those who composed the Legislature 
at any period of our history. And on examining that version, 
your committee find that it is accompanied with numerous 
comments and notes illustrating and enforcing the peculiar 
doctrines and tenets of the Roman Catholic Church, and is so 
far at least decidedly sectarian in its character, and clearly 
within the prohibitory clause of the act; and it is a well known 
fact that no edition of that Bible is permitted to be published 
unless accompanied by notes furnished by the authorities of 
that Church. Believing, therefore, that the Legislature intend- 



i 



17 



ed to permit the use of some version of the Bible in our com- 
mon schools, and that the Douay Bible could not have been 
the one contemplated, the inference seems to be irresistible 
that they intended that which is usually known as the Pro- 
testant Bible, which is published without note or comment, 
and is in general use in this State. Your committee have 
therefore come to the conclusion that the Protestant version of 
the Bible is not "sectarian" within the meaning of the act of 
1842, and was not intended to be thereby excluded from our 
common schools. 

The second consideration is whether, independent of the 
views and intentions of the Legislature in passing the act of 
1842, it is expedient to exclude the Bible from our common 
schools. 

Supposing the Bible and all books illustrating its doctrines 
and precepts excluded from our schools, your committee do not 
see how in regard to many departments of knowledge its place 
is to be supplied. By what other book will you instruct the 
infant mind as to the origin and formation of this universal 
world ? as to the causes which have produced the present ap- 
pearance and geological condition of the earth we inhabit ? 
Nay, how otherwise, will the Israelitish trustee, who has sign- 
ed the report under consideration, account for the origin and 
present condition of his own peculiar race ? Indeed, it may 
be safely asserted that neither the geologist, nor the astrono- 
mer, nor the naturalist, nor the historian, can effectually and 
satisfactorily teach all that appertains to his peculiar depart- 
ment, without a resort to the revealed word of God. Banish 
from your schools the Bible, and all the books written under 
its influence and illustrating its precepts, and you cannot make 
up the necessary assortment for a well organized school, much 
less establish an effective discipline for its management. 



• 



18' 

And in a system of public instruction, it must be remem- 
bered that the object is not merely to cultivate the intellect, but 
to elevate and improve the moral character ; and in a form of 
Government like ours, this consideration is of infinite import- 
ance, inasmuch as its very existence and duration depend upon 
the virtue of the people. And as an instrument of moral cul- 
tivation it may be fearlessly asserted that no other book can be 
put in comparison with the Bible ; and no system of morals 
has ever been formed independent of it, that did not contain the 
most glaring inconsistencies and defects. " When the obliga- 
tions of morality are taught," says a distinguished writer, " let 
the sanctions of Christianity never be forgotten ; by which it 
will be shown that they give strength and lustre to each other ; 
religion will appear to be the voice of reason, and morality 
will be the will of God." 

Indeed it seems to be now a well established political 
axiom, that no free government has any durable basis 
which is not sustained by those moral obligations that de- 
rive their force from the principles of Christianity. Judge 
Story in his book on constitutional law, already referred 
to, well observes, that the promulgation of the great doc- 
trines of religion, the being and attributes and providence 
of one Almighty God, the responsibility to him for all our ac- 
tions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability — a fu- 
ture state of rewards and punishments — can never be matters 
of indifference in any well ordered community. It is indeed 
difficult, says he, to conceive how any civilized society can 
well exist without them. 

As illustrative of this position, he might have referred to the 
example of France previous to her revolution — and you see 
her infidel philosophers preparing a system of education 
without religion — the design of which was, says Mr. Burke, 
to abolish the Christian religion under all its forms, when- 



19 

ever the minds of men were prepared for it. — " These en- 
thusiasts/' says he, "do not scruple to avow their opinion that 
a State can subsist without any religion, better than with one ; 
and that they were able to supply the place of any good which 
might be in it, by a project of their own : namely, by a sort of 
education founded in a knowledge of the physical wants of 
man, progressively carried on to an enlightened self interest, 
which they said, when well understood, would identify with 
an interest more enlarged and public ; this system they called 
a civic education." 

Well, the experiment was made. The Bible and every book 
inculcating its principles were banished from all their institu • 
tions for public instruction ; and what was the result ? " Re- 
ligion and its ministers were brought into contempt" — the tem- 
ples erected for the worship of Almighty God were closed — [or 
only opened for the entrance of the goddess of reason*] the 
passions of men were let loose — the social ties dissolved, the 
domestic affections stifled — the foundations of civil society 
broken up — and a scene of horror ensued which no man can 
look back to, even at this distance of time, without shuddering 
at the depravity to which human nature, uninfluenced by re- 
ligion, may reach even in an enlightened age and country. 

This false system of education was the introduction to what 
was called the " French philosophy," the character and tenden- 
cy of which may be learned from the confessions of one of its 
votaries. "I have consulted," says Rousseau, "our philoso- 
phers, I have perused their books, I have examined their seve- 
ral opinions, I have found them all proud, positive and dogma- 
tizing even in their pretended scepticism ; knowing every thing, 
proving nothing, and ridiculing one another ; and this is the 
only point in which they concur, and in which they are right. 
Where is the philosopher who for his own glory would not 



* Allison's His. of En. ch. 10 p. 234 



20 

willingly deceive the whole human race? Where is he who 
in the secret of his heart proposes any other object than his 
own distinction ? The great thing for him is to think differ- 
ently from other people ; under the pretence of being them- 
selves the only people enlightened, they imperiously subject us 
to their magisterial decisions, and would fain palm upon us 
for the true causes of things, the unintelligible systems they 
have erected in their own heads. While they overturn, des- 
troy and trample under foot all that mankind reveres — snatch 
from the afflicted the only comfort left them in misery — from 
the rich and great the only curb that can restrain their passions 
— tear from the heart all remorse of vice, all hopes of virtue, 
they still boast themselves the benefactors of mankind." 

Such is the history of the experiment made in France, of 
what was called " a civic education," uncontrolled and unin- 
fluenced by any religious sentiment or principle — and it would 
be surprising indeed, if at this enlightened era there should be 
many advocates for introducing it here. 

But it may be said, admitting the principle that the mainte- 
nance of religion is necessary, it should be left to parental 
discretion at home — and there is no necessity for making it a 
part of public school education. This position your com- 
mittee consider entirely fallacious. Among the arguments 
used in our Legislature for appropriating so large an amount 
of the public money toward the support of public schools, was 
this — that education was essential to the public welfare, and 
that if the government did not provide for it, individuals would 
in too many instances entirely neglect it, even in respect to 
their own children. 

The same argument is applicable on the present occasion. 
If the inculcation of religious principle is essential to the well- 
being of the State, the State must itself look to it, and if not 
attended to in our common schools, to a very great extent it 
will not be attended to at all. And even those parents who 



21 

should be disposed to inculcate religious principles at home, 
would find their efforts greatly impeded by the prejudice 
created in the minds of their children against the Bible, by its 
formal exclusion from the schools to which they daily resort ; 
and it would be very difficult for the parent to convince the 
child of the vital importance of that which was expressly re- 
pudiated by public authority. 

In whatever light therefore we may view this subject, 
whether as philanthropists, as patriots or as Christians, your 
committee are persuaded that it is vastly important that the 
Bible should be retained in our common schools, and that by 
excluding it, we should justly incur the charge of a gross dere- 
liction of the duty we owe to ourselves, to our children and to 
our country. 

Your committee therefore recommend the passage of the re- 
solutions appended to this report. 

G. CLARK, Chairman, 
M. SPENCER, 
JACOB AIMS. 

The committee to whom was referred a report of the trus- 
tees of the Fourth Ward, objecting to certain books as " sec- 
tarian" — having made their report, Thereupon 

Resolved, That in the opinion of this Board, there are no 
well-founded objections to the books mentioned in the said re- 
port of the said Trustees of the Fourth Ward. 

Resolved, That the Bible without note or comment is not 
" sectarian" within the meaning of the act of 1842, and the use 
thereof in our common schools was not intended to be prohibi- 
ted by that or any subsequent act. 



